Montclair council adopts five‑year refuse and sewer rate caps after public hearing

The Montclair City Council adopted Resolution No. 24-3453 after a Proposition 218 public hearing that set five‑year maximum monthly caps for residential refuse and sewer fees.

Finance Director Janet KC opened the hearing and explained that mailed notices met Proposition 218 requirements, that the clerk had received zero written protests, and that the proposal sets maximum monthly caps for the five‑year period running July 1, 2024 through July 1, 2028. The staff presentation detailed each rate component — service, landfill tipping, recycling and green‑waste processing, and new sewer components — and noted some charges are pass‑through costs determined by vendors or other agencies.

Janet KC said the contracted hauler, Burtek, is requesting a 3.48% CPI adjustment to its service portion of the monthly residential rate. “Burtek is requesting a 3.48% CPI adjustment,” she said. Staff explained many other increases shown in the presentation are pass‑through fees (landfill tipping, recycling processing, SB 1383 compliance costs) that the hauler pays to third parties and then passes on to customers.

Several residents spoke during the hearing. Aaron Adams urged the city to consider competition in hauling contracts and warned that multi‑year caps can compound into larger increases over time. “Anytime I get anything done... I get bids,” Adams said, urging the council to solicit competing bids to lower costs.

Council members discussed why the five‑year maximum includes a 10% cap in tables staff presented. Staff said the 10% figure is a planning maximum used to estimate a five‑year projection and that in practice the city rarely reaches the cap; they also noted franchise agreements typically run 10 years and the city cannot rebid annually for hauler services. Council and staff also discussed a new $0.50/month sewer 'part four' fee to fund responses to sewer contamination events and sanitary sewer overflows; staff said the city expects increased maintenance costs and noted a state audit tied to contaminations could result in penalties (staff said a penalty could be up to about $100,000, amount not finalized).

After discussion the council moved to approve the resolution. The meeting record shows the resolution was "adopted 4 to 1." The motion text in the record was to approve Resolution No. 24-3453 as presented; the transcript did not record a roll-call vote listing each council member’s individual vote in the excerpt available.

Staff and the contracted hauler said that many cost components are outside the city’s direct control and that some increases reflect state mandates (such as SB 1383 organic-waste requirements) or higher disposal and processing fees. Staff urged residents on fixed incomes to use the city’s senior rate and to reach out for questions about variance budget adjustments and available credits described in the presentation.

The council moved on to the consent calendar after adopting the resolution.